Once Tims got a diagram here well send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline. Mikes series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Top independent, peer-reviewed research indicating that climate change is real, deadly, and caused by humans Posted by Cory Doctorow, February 4, 2009 12:44 AM | permalink

From Nature's excellent Climate Change section, excellent summation of the year's research into anthropogenic climate change -- that is, the hard scientific evidence from unbiased, independent scientists indicating that climate change is real, caused by humans, and dangerous to the planet.

"4. The hockey stick holds up

A follow-up to the infamous 1998 'hockey stick' curve confirmed that the past two decades are the warmest in recent history. Climatologist Michael Mann's contentious graph has become a symbol of the fierce debates on evidence for global warming, to the extent that an independent investigation into the study was performed at the request of US Congressman Joe Barton. The 2006 report that resulted from the Barton enquiry criticized Mann and colleagues for their reliance on tree-ring data from bristlecone pines as a proxy to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years. Although their earlier work had been largely vindicated, in September the same team revised their global surface temperature estimates for the past 2,000 years, using a greatly expanded set of proxies, including marine sediments, ice cores, coral and historical documents (Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1325213257; 2008). The team reconstructed global temperatures with and without inclusion of the tree-ring records: without their inclusion, the data showed that recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years; inclusion of tree-ring data extended this period to at least 1,700 years. According to the Christian Science Monitor: "It still looks a lot like the much-battered, but still rink-ready stick of 1998. Today the handle reaches further back and it's a bit more gnarly. But the blade at the business end tells the same story."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was one of the winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and a professor at The University of Arizona was one of only 33 lead authors on an IPCC assessment report released earlier this year.

Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA’s Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and professor of geosciences and atmospheric sciences, was a coordinating lead author, Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate), for the IPCCs fourth assessment report.

“This is pretty awesome, says Overpeck. “So much work went into this on the part of so many scientists. The recognition is a reflection of the impact that climate science is having. It’s also a reflection that society is moving from questioning climate change to realizing that it’s happening and discuss what to do about it.”

The fourth assessment report, which focused on the science of climate change, presented expert consensus on greenhouse gas levels, global land and ocean temperatures, sea level rising, changes in sea ice and predictions of future change.

“Jonathan Overpeck is that rare individual that is a superb scientist who is also capable of fully organizing the points of view of many to come up with a cohesive and inclusive document,” said Joaquin Ruiz, dean of the UA College of Science.

Overpeck believes that it is appropriate to recognize climate change as a peace issue. “Climate change is the biggest environmental challenge that humankind has had to deal with on an international scale. Climate change will force humans to cope with water shortages, a difficult and changing food supply, rising sea level and the resulting human migrations and environmental refugees. We have a chance here to anticipate these possible impacts and to reduce them, thereby reducing the likelihood of human suffering and conflict.”

Overpeck also was pleased that the IPCC will share the award with Al Gore. “It’s an honor for the scientific community to share this with him, says Overpeck. “Vice President Gore, like no other politician, has really taken the time to understand the science and to communicate it. Many in the scientific community feel that the work that Al Gore is doing is very valuable because he’s getting the science out to the public in a way most scientists could only dream of.”

A faculty member at the UA since 1999, Overpeck received his undergraduate degree in geology from Hamilton College, and his advanced degrees from Brown University. After graduation, he spent five years as a research scientist at Columbia University before moving on to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to work on its paleoclimatology program.

The IPCC, a group representing over 180 governments, operates under the auspices of the U.N. Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. It commissions assessments of global climate change by hundreds of scientists who are experts in the field.

3
posted on 11/19/2009 10:29:19 PM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

This story is exploding all over the skeptical blogs. The data dump also includes data files and code. The real treasure trove will be in looking at this data and code, which Phil Jones and others have kept secret from potential skeptics. Most skeptics will not be surprised by the email content, though it is always good to have your paranoia legitimated.

Ancient pines close to treeline have wider annual growth rings for the period from 1951 to 2000 than for the previous 3,700 years, reports a University of Arizona-led research team. Regional temperatures have increased, particularly at high elevations, during the same 50-year time period. Increasing temperatures at high altitudes are fueling the post-1950 growth spurt has been observed in Rocky Mountain bristlecone pines, including ones in Arizona’s San Francisco Peaks.
Bristlecone pines live for thousands of years on dry, windswept, high-elevation mountain slopes in the western U.S. The scientists collected and analyzed tree rings from Great Basin bristlecone pines located in three mountain ranges in eastern California and Nevada that are separated by hundreds of miles.

The team analyzed the average and median width of tree rings for 50-year blocks of time, starting with the latter half of the 20th century, the years 1951 to 2000, and going backward in time to 2650 B.C. The analysis spans more than 4,600 years.

“We’re showing this increased growth rate at treeline in a number of locations,” said Matthew W. Salzer, a research associate at UA’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. “It’s unique in several millennia, and it’s related specifically to treeline.”

Only trees growing within about 500 feet (150 meters) of treeline showed the surge in growth. In general, those trees were at or above about 11,000 feet (3,300 meters) in elevation.
“You can come downslope less than 200 vertical meters and sample the same species of tree, and it won’t show the same wide band of growth,” Salzer said.

Growth at the pines’ upper elevational range is limited by cold temperatures. At the lower elevations, growth of the trees is limited by moisture more than temperature, Salzer said.

Co-author Malcolm K. Hughes said, “Something very unusual is happening at high elevations, and this is one more piece of evidence for that.” One other example, he said, was the accelerated melting of small glaciers at high altitudes.

“There is increasingly rapid warming in western North America,” said Hughes, a UA Regents’ Professor of dendrochronology. “The higher you go, the faster it’s warming. We think our finding may be part of that whole phenomenon.”

Individual Great Basin bristlecone pines, Pinus longaeva, are the longest-living organisms known. The trees live at an elevation range of approximately 8,200 to 11,400 feet (about 2,500 to 3,500 meters). The oldest living bristlecone, almost 5,000 years old, is in California’s White Mountains.

The trees’ longevity coupled with the excellent preservation of trunks from even older dead trees has allowed some scientists to reconstruct regional climate 8,000 years into the past using tree-ring records from bristlecone pines.

The recent rapid growth of three species of pines at elevations close to treeline had been noticed more than 25 years ago by previous researchers from UA’s Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research. The sudden growth surge was puzzling in trees hundreds to thousands of years old, well past their adolescence.

7
posted on 11/19/2009 10:33:58 PM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

Philip D. Jones (born 1952) is a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, notable for maintaining of the time series of the instrumental temperature record [1]; this work figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM [2]. He is director of the Climatic Research Unit and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. He holds a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Lancaster, and an MSc and PhD from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. His PhD was titled “A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne”. His research interests are instrumental climate change, palaeoclimatology, detection of climate change and the extension of riverflow records in the UK. He was a contributing author to the IPCC TAR chapter 12 Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes. Together with Michael E. Mann he has published on the temperature record of the past 1000 years.

(snip) The warning, from Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was one of four sobering predictions from senior scientists and forecasters that 2007 will be a crucial year for determining the response to global warming and its effect on humanity.

Professor Jones said the long-term trend of global warming - already blamed for bringing drought to the Horn of Africa and melting the Arctic ice shelf - is set to be exacerbated by the arrival of El Niño, the phenomenon caused by above-average sea temperatures in the Pacific.

Combined, they are set to bring extreme conditions across the globe and make 2007 warmer than 1998, the hottest year on record. It is likely temperatures will also exceed 2006, which was declared in December the hottest in Britain since 1659 and the sixth warmest in global records.

Professor Jones said: “El Niño makes the world warmer and we already have a warming trend that is increasing global temperatures by one to two tenths of a degrees celsius per decade. Together, they should make 2007 warmer than last year and it may even make the next 12 months the warmest year on record.”(end snip)

8
posted on 11/19/2009 10:37:16 PM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley is a climatologist and University Distinguished Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he is also research director of the Climate System Research Center. Bradley's work indicates that the warming of Earth's climate system in the twentieth century is inexplicable via natural mechanisms.

Bradley was a contributing author to the IPCC TAR. Bradley worked on reconstructing the temperature record of the past 1000 years with MICHAEL E MANN AND MALCOLM K. HUGHS, an eminent dendrologist.This work (for which is he is publicly best known, although scientifically his contributions to assembling surface temperature records are only rivaled by Phil Jones) figured prominently in the IPCC TAR SPM.[1] In 2005, the Chair of the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) demanded that Bradley provide a detailed accounting of the data and funding of his research on climate change.[2] Barton specifically asked for responses to various allegations made by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick about the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers.[3] In Bradley's response, he finds the assertions of McIntyre and McKitrick to be without worth,[4] and recommends a commentary by Gavin Schmidt on the RealClimate website as providing a very good guide to the issues.[5]

10
posted on 11/19/2009 10:41:50 PM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

Sorry, it’s not one article. I pinged people who were already aware that the Hadley CRU had been hacked. This hack revealed damning information contained in emails that some of the most important global warming science had been tainted.

I posted information on the emailers. These men are the world’s leading global warming “experts”. The IPCC report Al Gore leans on so heavily is crawling with the work of the men discussing falsifying their studies to “prove” that global warming is real. Some of these men had testified for congress.

Make sense now? (I’m trying to get my keyboard on the torrent file of the actual emails. Supposedly, it contains the actual numbers that were faked. It’s slow going because I suck at these things. I should wake up my teenage daughter! lol!)

13
posted on 11/19/2009 11:11:43 PM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Hes not in at the moment  minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I dont
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

“As some WUWT readers may have learned from reading Climate Audit, an anonymous source deep within Hadley CRU has provided Steve McIntyre a copy of a data file he has been seeking but has had his FOI requests to Hadley seeking the same file, rebuked.”

Ive seen the data. As I posted last night on Climate Audit:

You know, not everyone in every organization believes in everything the organization does. This is why we have leaks in the White House and people like Deep Throat that provide evidential tidbits with guidance like follow the money.

Steve has shared this data and the source with me, as a way of verification, and I can vouch for both the validity of the data and of the source ip address. It truly comes from deep within the organization.  Anthony

While the CRU data file is not the most current, it is the most current one the mole could produce for us.

But most importantly this will not deter Steve in his FOI requests, he writes:

And by the way, just because Ive got a version of the data doesnt mean that Im going to give up trying to get the data through FOI. Quite the opposite.

Indeed. Better to get it through the front door.

I mentioned to Steve this morning via email that in addition to verifying the source, I was able to come up with a photo of the anonymous mole in CRU. Ive sent him a copy.

Stay tuned.

h/t to commenter John S. at Climate Audit for the Deep Cool moniker.

NB, I’ve spent all morning watching this new GRU/Hadley hack story swarm over the Web, almost exclusively via knowledgable Climate skeptics sites & the Examiner web paper...just now found Andrew Bolt @ the Herald Sun, AU has picked up this and is running with it. Lubos Motl, terrific Cz Physicist & strong IT guy has been all over the IT side, http://motls.blogspot.com/
The Brit in charge @ Hadley has admitted to the hack story!!! This is the Pentagon Papers of AGW!

OK, think about all the global warming BS. The emissions standards that kill your gas mileage. The destructive Cap and Trade bill they’re trying to shoved sown our throats. The pressure to recycle. The pressure on farmers. The Clean Air Act has abused to force companies to change the way they produce things in order to avoid global warming. The war on coal (think about the “clean coal” conversation Biden had with that greeny-weeny during the campaign). etc, etc.

This file proves that the GW controversy is PURE BS. It contains the emails and other damning evidence from the top GW scientists themselves. In their own words, they discuss falsifying information, lying to congress and destroying evidence. From what I found last night, these are *the* guys who were the most influential in the IPCC report that congress leans on to shove all this onto the American people.

This puts the LIE to everything in our school text books. This is the greatest scam ever perpetuated on the entire people of the world.

And this file is the proof of that.

37
posted on 11/20/2009 11:35:35 AM PST
by Marie
(Is there a crack smoking epidemic in the media that I was unaware of? It was TERRORISM!)

Lots of talk about “forcing” the data, i.e., selecting time scale and other data, and then "smoothing" the data-points to hide anomalies, so that the graphs and other compilations suits their agenda.

Using Google Desktop and the word indexing features therein provides researchers of this data to isolate searches better by looking for their primary email host (”uea.ac.uk”) and other any other key words.

For example, this is from the file 1153254016.txt:

>>> But I >>> think, nevertheless, that some of the reasons for (i) proportional >>> scaling, (ii) common anomalisation period; and (iii) smoothing to >>> achieve presentation on comparable time scales, that held for 6.13 >>> probably also hold in 6.14. >>> However, I also appreciate the points raised by Fortunat, >>> specifically that (i) it is nice to be able to compare the magnitude >>> of the 11-yr solar cycles with the magnitude of the low-frequency >>> solar variations; and (ii) that using a modern reference period >>> removes the interpretation that we don’t even know the forcing today.>>> So we have various advantages and disadvantages of different >>> presentational choices, and no set of choices will satisfy all these >>> competing demands. >>> One thing that I am particularly perturbed about is Fortunat’s >>> implication that to show smoothed forcings would be scientifically >>> dishonest. I disagree (and I was also upset by your choice of >>> wording). If it were dishonest to show smoothed data, then >>> presumably the same holds for 6.13.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.